Monthly Archives: March 2006

[Note: I wrote this article back in 2001 when we lived in Ohio. It was first published in my own monthly e-mail homeschooling newsletter and also sent out on several homeschooling e-mail lists. From there, I know that it appeared in some other local homeschool group newsletters. It seems to me that it may have also appeared at one time on the Missouri page of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine website. With the end of another school year and the possibility of burnout for some looming, I thought that perhaps it was time to bring it around again. WSW.]

A young man and a young woman loved each other very much. So they decided to get married and have a family. A little later, when their children came along they loved them very much too. They enjoyed being with their children, playing with their children, reading to their children, stimulating their children's minds, helping their children learn their letters, numbers, shapes, and colors, watching their children progress, and especially teaching their children about God, the wonderful stories of the Bible, and the joy of knowing Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as the time drew near for them to think about sending their children to school, they said, “We have already been teaching our children all along. Why should we turn them over to someone whom we do not know to be taught that which we have not necessarily approved in an environment over which we have no control? Why should we not, rather, continue that which we have started and just teach them at home?” So, they read many books and magazines about homeschooling. They sought out and talked to many people who were are had been homeschooling. They even attended homeschooling conventions and seminars. As they saw how much work would be involved, they initially asked, “Is it worth it?” But after discussing it a long time between themselves, based on what they had learned they determined that homeschooling was right for them to fulfill their responsibility to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

However, they met with much opposition. The educational establishment, who had once encouraged themsaying, “You are your child's first teacher,” now told them, “Oh, no, you are too unprepared, too ill-equipped, too lacking in the knowledge of educational philosophy (or in other words, too stupid) to teach your children everything that they need. Leave that to the experts.” Their friends and neighbors began to say, “Oh, I could never do that. How in the world can you even think of doing it?” Yea, resistance arose from some in their own family, asking, “But what about socialization? And high school? And college? And getting a job?” Even in the church where they attended, a few looked upon them askance and thought of them as oddballs. Again, in the face of all this, they asked themselves, “Is it worth it?”

Yet, the young parents girded up the loins of their minds and set themselves to the task ahead of them. Having done their homework, they chose the educaitonal method, the teaching style, and the curriculum which they felt was most appropriate for their family and made whatever modifications were necessary to accomplish their aim of laying a foundation for their children to remember their Creator in the days of their youth and learn from childhood the holy scriptures which are able to make them wise unto salvation, being trained in the waythat they should go so that when they would grow older they would not depart from it but keep the ways of the Lord all their lives, while they were being educated. And so they began the work to which they had set themselves.

But the way was not always easy. The path was not always smooth. Sometimes there were rough spots on the road. On occasion, the going got tough. Fractions were hard for one child. Grammar was difficult for another. In spite of everything that the parents tried to do with certain subjects, sometimes it seemed that the children just “did not get it,” so there were moments of discouragement. The children did not always want to read the books that the parents chose for them, and they often complained about how much they hated to write. There were days when their little darlings did not act as cute and precious as they had done in the past. And times did arise when the parents looked at one another in frustration and said once more, “Is it worth it? Or should we just give up?” Then they remembered the saying that “no man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” And they reminded themselves that their primary goal in homeschooling was to prepare their children to become citizens of the kingdom of God.

And in spite of the problems, difficulties, and trials, there were also many joys along the way–the joy of mastering a complex subject or solving a troublesome problem together; the joy of seeing their children's achievements and knowing that they were an integral part of it rather than just being onlookers; the joy of knowing that their children were safe and being protected from certain things during their most innocent and formative years before they were really ready to face them; the joy of sharing life as a family instead of being rendered asunder by homework overloads and endless extra-curricular activities.

Then, after years of hard but satisfying work, there was the ultimate joy of seeing their children complete their formal studies, now prepared to make their own way in the world, whether it be college, a job, or whatever, with genuine faith in God. So they were finally able to answer their own, oft-asked, question without a shadow of a doubt. “Yes, it was worth it!” (Copyright 2001 by Wayne S. Walker)

For the next few days, our lives will be very hectic in making the last minute preparations for the first of what we hope will be many annual events, the Greater St. Louis Area Home Educators Expo, this coming Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. I was chairman of the committee which obtained the speakers and while there was a lot of work, it was still a lotof fun and we are looking forward to the finished product. Here is a summary of what will be going on (a cross post from my Missouri State blog, www.homeschoolblogger.com/Missouri ).

Teaching your children how to read, learn penmanship, or do addition and subtraction, along with elementary science and history or geography, while they do take effort and planning, are not overly daunting. However, the thought of trying to instruct your children in algebra and geometry, biology and chemistry, American and English literature, term papers, or the entire history of the world in their high school years can be a bit sobering. When our local homeschooling group has a meeting on homeschooling high school we always have a huge turnout. Two of the most popular seminars at the Greater St. Louis Area Home Educators Expo are Carolyn Schriner's “Homeschooling for High School and Beyond” in which she explain all about high school curriculum planning, testing and transcripts, and scholarships and financial aid; and Scott and Kris Wightman's “College Without Compromise” in which they explain how to use high school years to prepare for college. Each seminar is three hours long!

Several good books about homeschooling through the high school years have already been written. A new e-book on the subject, Homeschooling the High Schooler, has been prepared by Paul and Gena Suarez, creators of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine, along with Nancy Carter, project editor. This book has tons of interesting and helpful information, but does not appear to claim that it contains every detail. Rather, it has general articles of encouragement written by several well-known authors from the homeschooling community and lots of resource references listed (books, websites, etc.) that will be helpful in planning to homeschool through the high school years. Writers include Ronald and Inge Cannon of Education PLUS, Christine M. Field who authored A Field Guide to Homeschooling, Maggie Hogan of Bright Ideas Press, Ann Zeise of A to Z Home's Cool Homeschooling website, Coie Igarashi who is a homeschooled high schooler, Claire Novak who is a homeschooled high school graduate, and others.

The book is divided into three parts. Part 1, “You Can Homeschool Through the High School Years,” contains a lot of the general articles of encouragement. Part 2, “Options and Resources to Help You,” offers material on credit by examination, curriculum planning, dual enrollment, higher level math, high school science, and language arts. Part 3, “Preparing for the Future,” has advice on transcripts, how to turn extracurricular activities (e.g., work experiences, computer design, etc.) into credit courses, preparation for college, apprenticeship for vocational training, and encouraging entrepreneurship. While the authors make helpful suggestions, they do not necessarily tell you what to do but instead provide access to the resources that will help you chart your own course. Whatever method of homeschooling your family has chosen, you should be able to find a lot of helpful information and material in this e-book. As the father of a 15 year old and a 10 year old, I found the book fascinating and extremely beneficial.

Unlike a lot of other bloggers, I do not usually have a lot of time to blog about our daily affairs. However, I am trying to figure out the new passwords and change them back to the old passwords as a result of the system changes at homeschoolblogger, and I am doing this on my wife's computer at home instead of mine at the office where I have all my “stuff” stored, so I wanted to see about putting a new post on the blog.

We did not “do school” today (Monday, 3/20). The boys had a learning group meeting scheduled for today, so we had called off regular studies, but the other family which regularly participates all came down sick–mother and two sons–so it was cancelled ast the last minute. Then, after taking our older son Mark (15) to his homeschool volleyball practice this afternoon, he came home saying that he felt sick. In fact, he climbed into bed (IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AFTERNOON NO LESS!), said he wasn't hungry (remember–he's 15 years old

1), and did record a 101 degree temperature. So I guess he's really sick. He has a doctor's appointment tomorrow (and probably won't “do school” again then).

In the meantime, my wife, who has also been having a lot of congestion, coughing, and other upper respiratory infection symptoms, just returned from a visit to the doctor herself. She was told that she has a viral infection due to sinusitis and that rather than getting an antibiotic she should just continue taking cold medicines to alleviate the symptoms.

Unless he comes down sick, Jeremy (age 10) will go with me to the office tomorrow and do his regular school work there. Right now, a group of us are feverishly making all the necessary last minute preparations for the Greater St. Louis Area Home Educators Expo (if you are interested, check it out on my Missouri blog or go to http://www.stlhomeschoolexpo.com ) which will be Mar. 30, 31, and Apr. 1. I have been in charge of scheduling, and right now I am working on last minute vendor workshops.

“Our entire school system is based on the notion of passive students that must be “taught” if they are to learn. . . . Our country spends tens of billions of dollars each year not just giving students a second-rate education, but at the same time actively preventing them from getting an education on their own. And I'm angry at how school produces submissive students with battered egos. Most students have no idea of the true joys of learning, and of how much they can actually achieve on their own” –Adam Robinson, co-founder of The Princeton Review (taken from The Imperfect Homeschooler e-newsletter is published by Cardamom Publishers, PO Box 81, Algonquin, IL 60102. To learn more about homeschooling, or for homeschool encouragement, visit “The Imperfect Homeschooler” Web site at http://www.cardamompublishers.com ).

I have not read John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education, but I have read reviews of and excerpts from it, as well as many articles that Gatto has written. I just saw the following in a homeschooling magazine.

If I demanded you give up your television to an anonymous, itinerant repairman who needed work you'd think I was crazy; if I came with a policeman who forced you to pay that repairman even after he broke your set–you would be outraged. Why are you so docile when you give up your child to a government agent called a schoolteacher? You have no say at all in choosing your teachers. You know nothing about their backgrounds. And the state knows little more than you do. This is as radical a piece of social engineering as the human imagination can conceive. One thing you do know is how unlikely it will be for any teacher to understand the personality of your particular child or anything significant about your family, culture, religion, plans, hopes, dreams. In the confusion of school affairs even teachers so disposed don't have opportunity to know those things. Before you hire a company to build a home you would, I expect, insist on detailed plans showing what the finished structure was going to look like. Building a child's mind and character is what public schools do, their justification for prematurely breaking family and neighborhood learning. Where is documentary evidence to prove this assumption that trained and certified professionals do it better than people who know and love them can? There isn't any. (The Underground History of American Education; Oxford Village Press; 2001.) AMEN AND AMEN!!!!!

Here are a couple of other articles that I wrote related to the theme of homeschooling and the evolution controversy for the 3/06 issue of my free, monthly e-mail homeschooling newsletter. I do not post on this weblog articles written by others because, although I do obtain permission to use them in the newsletter, I do not feel that I have equal permission to post them here. But if anyone wants to see the other articles, just e-mail me privately and I will be happy to send you the newsletter.

7. HOMESCHOOLING, CREATION, AND EVOLUTIONby Wayne S. Walker The reason for the previous five articles was to show the fallacy of the claim made by the author referred to in the opening article and by John Clayton that “scientific creationism” or a belief in a young earth and literal six-day creation is necessarily associated with dispensational premillennialists. All five of those articles were written by men who are members of the non-denominational, New Testament church of Christ and who stand opposed to premillennialism in any form. Therefore, it is just not true that to believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation one must accept the concept of dispensationalism. Today creationism is making perhaps its strongest comeback since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. The Oct. 15, 2005, issue of World Magazine (p. 24) has a story about the Dover, PA, school board which established a curriculum modification that requires ninth-grade biology teachers to name intelligent design (ID) as an alternate theory of origins prior to teaching evolution and to refer students to an ID textbook available in the school library. Intelligent Design is not the same thing as Biblical creationism, and ID scientists base their conclusions on observable nature rather than scripture, but their arguments from observable nature are quite similar to arguments made by scientific creationists from the scripture, so that in many instances the two go hand in hand. Of course, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who came to defense of Dayton, TN, teacher John Scopes, calling a prohibition on teaching evolution an unconstitutional violation of free speech, found eight families from the Dover school district, including plaintiff Tammy Kitzmiller, to file a suit that challenges the policy, thus lining up on the opposite side of free speech this time. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was argued on Sept. 26, 2005, and a ruling from the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is expected in late October or early November. The Discovery Institute of Seattle, WA, which is the leading intellectual force for ID, has filed an amicus brief from 85 scientists that urges Judge John E. Jones III (is he a Clinton appointee?) to protect academic freedom. Discovery Institute fellow John West reported that several other school boards around the country have successfully added scientific criticisms of Darwinism to their curriculum and said, “The reason why scientists are gravitating toward [ID] is because of the evidence. A court decision is not going to overturn the evidence.” In fact, such court proceedings are already drawing greater attention to the primary claim of ID that time plus chance cannot account for the complexity of life. Unfortunately, in last year's elections, the school board members who voted to include ID were voted out, and after that the judge ruled for the plaintiffs and against the inclusion of ID. We shall probably have more to say about that in a future issue. The fact is that the evolutionists are running scared! Their monopolistic hold on the educational community is being challenged and, in fact, is in danger. Some of this can be attributed to homeschoolers and their pursuit of creationist rather than evolutionary science curricula. Of course, the evolutionists are not going to give up without a fight, but as I have said before, if the idea of creationism is such a stupid, inane, vapid idea that does not have a leg to stand on, why do they feel that they have to fight so hard against it? Now is the time for all true Bible believers to unite behind creationism rather than to compromise with the evolutionists on the age of the earth. Therefore, it is a source of some amazement and concern that even a few of our own brethren are giving uncertain sounds on this issue. Past issues of this newsletter have talked about the debate at Florida College regarding the teaching of Hill Roberts, another college friend of mine, which is very similar to that of Hugh Ross and his “big bang/progressive creationism,” and Shane Scott who also began promoting the idea that there were long ages between the “literal six days” of creation. I have several articles by gospel preachers opposing these teachings in my files taken from various magazines published by brethren. When I lived in Dayton, OH, I ran in a little paper that I published, Search for Truth (June 20, 1999; Vol. V, No. 12-a), copies of articles by Wayne Wells in the Feb. and Mar., 1999, issues (Vol. XLIII, Nos. 2 and 3) of The East Florence Contender, published by the East Florence church of Christ in Florence, AL, reviewing Roberts's materials (a third issue of The East Florence Contender, Apr., 1999, was also devoted to the issue). And I have copies of Reason and Revelation, published by Apologetics Press (which is an organization operated by folks who are also members of the church of Christ) in which Bert Thompson, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May discuss “The Big Bang Theory–A Scientific Critique” and deal with Hugh Ross's teachings (May, June, and July, 2003). One more article on this subject follows, and it is by me as well. It first appeared in the December, 2000, issue of With All Boldness (Vol. 10, No. 12; p. 8), and was reprinted in slightly adapted form in The Defender (Sept. 28, 2003; Vol. 45, No. 38), the bulletin of the Affton Church of Christ. I should think from the previous articles in this newsletter, anyone would easily conclude what I believe about creation. However, I do want to make a distinction. With regard to those who actively and publicly promote a “reinterpretation” of Genesis 1 for the purpose of compromising with the evolutionist's claim of millions and billions of years, I would stand opposed to them. Yet, I do believe that there are others who perhaps have just blindly accepted such teachings without really thinking them through. I believe that we can still work with such people. We must continue to teach only the truth, but instead of cutting everyone with whom we might disagree off, we might wish to keep lines of communication open so that perhaps those with honest hearts might be led to accept that truth. That is what the following article is really about.========================================================================8. THE DAYS OF CREATIONby Wayne S. Walker By nature, I am a fairly simple person (I did not say simple-minded!). Through the years I have tried to benefit from complex, heavily-footnoted articles written by others (and have even written a few of those myself). However, the older I become, the more I see the need to distill all those complex arguments so that all can understand. Also, my aim is to have a simple faith in God and His word, determined that whenever there is a seeming conflict between the fallible theories of men and what God's word says, I will accept what God's word says. Therefore, I have read with great interest discussions over the last few years among brethren regarding the days of creation. The Biblical account of creation is straightforward in Genesis 1:1 through 2:4, saying that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. However, the atheistic evolutionist is convinced that the Genesis account is just a myth because it does not allow the time which he claims is necessary for the universe to have evolved by purely natural means. Even among those who claim to accept the Bible, there are those who do not believe that it necessarily means what it says. A couple of years ago, a controversy arose over some brethren who, according to what I have read, were, and perhaps still are, affirming that God created the earth in a literal six days but that between each of those six days long periods of time may have occurred, so that perhaps the atheistic evolutionist is right when he claims that the earth is millions and even billions of years old. The purpose of this article is not to provide all the facts of the discussion, but simply to make a few observations that have been in my thoughts as a result of what I have read and heard.On the One Hand Although my goal is always to stand for truth and against error, I do not feel it incumbent upon me to characterize everyone with whom I may disagree as one who has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. None of us was present at creation, so aside from the rather sketchy record which God had Moses write, we do not have much information concerning the means and methods that God may have used. If a brother draws some different conclusions than I do and offers them merely as suggestions or possibilities, I may not necessarily decide that he is in damnable error even though I disagree with his opinions. For instance, I had a teacher who, based on his knowledge of the Hebrew language and his study of the scriptures, was convinced that the word “day” in Genesis 1 did not necessarily mean a 24-hour day. He was quick to add that it could not be a long period of time, such as thousands, millions, or even billions of years, but could refer to a rather limited space of time such as, if I remember correctly, anywhere from two to six weeks or so. I was never convinced, but in spite of this, he is a well-respected brother and I know of no efforts that have been made to ferret him out as dangerous false teacher and blasphemous heretic. Even among those who claim to be anti-evolutionists, some are “young earth creationists” and others are “old earth creationists.” These periodically hurl anathemas at each other. It so happens that I find the “scientific creationist” theory of a young earth to be the most plausible, but the truth is that no one knows exactly how old the earth is. Rather than fighting among ourselves, we would accomplish more by putting our arguments over opinions aside and directing our attention toward the true enemy. Certainly, there can be no compromise of truth, and perhaps I am a bit naive, but that is how I feel.On the Other Hand At the same time, I cannot fathom why those who claim to believe in Biblical creation would feel the need to “harmonize” what the Bible says with the ever-changing and irresolute theories of men. The problem is that when we have “harmonized” the Bible to whatever the theory-du-jour happens to be, then when the theory changes, we have to “re-harmonize” the Bible to fit it. Why go to all that trouble? Why not simply accept what the Bible has to say by faith and leave it at that (Hebrews 11:3)? God put the Bible in a form to be understood by men. Therefore, the language is suited to the minds that He gave us. While figurative language is sometimes used, there is absolutely nothing in the context of Genesis 1 to suggest that Moses was presenting anything other than a historical account of what happened. The fact that Moses wrote that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, and then tied this to the command that the Israelites were to rest on the seventh day (a 24-hour period) of each week is strong evidence that Genesis 1 is to be understood exactly for what it seems to say. If we cannot trust the historical accuracy of the creation account, how can we trust the accuracy of any other Biblical account? Someone may ask about fellowship. Can we continue to have joint-participation with those with whom we may differ on the days of creation? This is a question that individuals and congregations will have to decide on their own. There are some issues about which we disagree but continue to have fellowship. Other issues eventually bring about a break in fellowship. A lot depends upon the attitudes of those involved. However, “as for me and my house,” we shall continue to accept the Bible for what it says, refuse all compromise with those who are enemies of God's word, and let the chips fall where they may.Conclusion This article was not easy to write. While I am convinced that theories which claim to accept Biblical creation and yet make room for millions of years are sadly misguided and mistaken, I still think that we need to be very careful whom we identify as false teachers or opponents of the faith even though we may be convinced that they are misguided and mistaken.======================================================================